Nick Bollettieri: "Djokovic is the most complete player of all time"

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Well to scratch the surface on the subject since it is so frequent on message boards (nuthuggers, bandwagon, fanboys , haters, etc), here goes:

1. In a child's early development there are essential needs such as food, nurture, feeling of safety, comfort which are primarily provided by the mother for the most part until puberty (differs slightly for males and females but I'm going to elaborate using the general male model only).

2. When this child approaches puberty and starts attempting to identify himself as a man and no longer a boy, this causes him to reject the mother for a period of time in order to establish himself as an individual or as an adult. He needs a male role model or father figure

3. A present and accepting father or father figure is critical in this child's transition/development into manhood. It is in this period in the child's life that he is seeking to identify with his same sex role model to model him self after and seek the necessary approval and guidance. This approval of the same sex role model builds confidence, security and sets the framework for proper development into manhood. The lack of this acceptance and approval leaves a void which the child will be looking to fill for the rest of his life without even knowing why.

4. What you see on these boards when someone fiercely defends their "favorite" athlete (that they have never had any contact with) is the exposing of the absent male role model in a critical period of their development. They "hate" and reject any threat(other players, fans, family) as they have finally identified with someone. In their mind their favorite player would embrace them and accept them. This is how the fill the void of their childhood in their world.

What I see whenever I observe someone who "hates" or "over embraces" a professional athlete, politician, actor etc is that their childhood had an unfortunate void in it that is trying to be filled.

Any questions?




Hello Mr Freud :) Very honored to meet you.
Can you tell me about your after death experience? I want to hear the details. Did you know Federer had never even heard of you? What an ass right? You'll have to forgive him because he's just a tennis player, you know, reads magazines rather than books et al.
 

lendlmac

Rookie
I would still say he is the favorite. But I agree that Federer, Murray, and even Nadal all have more complete games than Djokovic. Nick B is a moron

Murray? who can't win a GS and CHOKES 75% of the time under pressure has a more complete game than Joker? Really? Tell us...enlighten us to Murray's GS successes count for us the number of GS won by Murray...oh wait......being a complete failure.....complete player INCLUDES mental strength.... oh wait...

tool
 

Romismak

Rookie
You all ,,experts,, do you honestly think anyone at home behind PC know more about tennis than Bollettieri? i don´t think so. It is questionable if Novak is the most complete player ever or not, but we can make some analysis and compare him - old players that used SV style are already out of this, because maybe they were complete in 80s-90s but today with modern baseline game those SV style guys like McEnroe looked not so complete after all. From 90s maybe Agassi is good for complete player and from now- Roger has versatility, but his game is not so ,,complete,, like you think, Nadal obviously out of question here, than we have Djokovic - great 2H BH, solid FH, now solid Serve, super deffense, super movement, best ROS, average volleys- for this decade - but volleys are not so important novadays- but still volleys he should improove and even his serve isn´t nothing special for No.1 guy, but overall he has 6,7 things great or very good from 8- only volleys are not great or very good. Show me another player who was 6,7 from 8- at very high level- maybe Agassi at his prime, but we can say that this Nole is even quicker, better and so on.. So i think Nole is really most complete guy ever.
 

ALL IN

Rookie
Hello Mr Freud :) Very honored to meet you.
Can you tell me about your after death experience? I want to hear the details. Did you know Federer had never even heard of you? What an ass right? You'll have to forgive him because he's just a tennis player, you know, reads magazines rather than books et al.

Freud was good in his time, kinda like 7 time Wimbledon Champion William Renshaw. Much has changed since those times.

I don't judge people, I just can't help but point out some obvious facts. Obvious in my profession at least.
 
I definitely see what Nick is saying. If you think about it, all the other top players have huge strengths with some minor, yet noticeable weaknesses. Rafa was mostly a defensive clay courter. His serve was quite weak and his offense wasn't at the same level as his defense. Obviously he's improved those aspects of his game and is now quite complete. However, He's always, to some extent, battling his natural tendency to be a defensive player.

Roger has a great game, but his backhand can't match up with the two-handers of today.

Djokovic is just solid in every aspect. His game seems cleaner than Nadal's and more modern than Federer's. He's well-rounded, solid, almost generic player.

Definitely not saying that Djokovic is greater than Nadal or Federer. Just that I can see how his game could be seen as more well rounded and complete.

Utter nonsense. Federer's backhand has matched up just fine with two handers. Every single slam final he's won has been against a top tier two handed player. He just schooled Djokovic at the French. Backhand looked pretty good there. Right now he is playing like crap, but to say his backhand can't match up against the two handers is silly.

Djokovic has improved his volleys but he's nowhere as "complete" as Federer. Even Nadal's volleys are better.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Nicky stating the obious.

97pbwj.gif
 
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.
 

Overheadsmash

Professional
I don't agree with him on that one,either. I think Murray will win a slam,and just may win more than one.

I saw Andy up close at cinci and was the most impressed with his game. His downfall is that he complains to his coaches too much and is not as focused as he should be. If he can overcome that, I think he has the game to beat all of these guys. His movement and ball striking were really good.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.
Wow! Troll of the Month Candidate.

For an 80 yr old, Nick can jump on a bandwagon with the best of them. :)
 

Outbeyond

Legend
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.

Only a BackhandExpert would know these things. Let us know what you learn from the 102 course next semester!
 

Overheadsmash

Professional
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.

Haha good one.
 

Clarky21

Banned
I saw Andy up close at cinci and was the most impressed with his game. His downfall is that he complains to his coaches too much and is not as focused as he should be. If he can overcome that, I think he has the game to beat all of these guys. His movement and ball striking were really good.

I agree with you. It's Andy's mental strength and tendency to lose focus that has cost him in the past. If he can fix those things,and learn to control his emotions on court,he has a very good shot at winning some slams.
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is a clear baseliner.

His strengths are: groundstroke consistency, flexibility, serve returns.
His weaknesses are: volleys, slice, overhead smash.

His serve, his speed and his dropshots are "normal" - decent enough for a top10 player, but nothing to make a movie about.

He is definitely not an all-court player, and absolutely not "the most complete ever".
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.


That about sums it up.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.

Looks like tennis_fan_182 has been referring these forums to his friends.
 
Djokovic is a clear baseliner.

His strengths are: groundstroke consistency, flexibility, serve returns.
His weaknesses are: volleys, slice, overhead smash.

His serve, his speed and his dropshots are "normal" - decent enough for a top10 player, but nothing to make a movie about.

He is definitely not an all-court player, and absolutely not "the most complete ever".

Say whaaaaaa?!

:shock:

Djokovic is the fastest man in tennis.
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
I don't know about being the most complete ever, but he's WAY more complete than Federer ever was. Federer was the most one-dimensional #1 of all-time. He had a forehand and could move well, and that's it. His serve was solid, not special. His backhand, the worst of any Top 10 player ever. His return of serve, terrible. Once he lost his quickness, he lost his return ability. He's now the worst returner in the Top 20. His net game was below average...terrible approaches and inconsistent technique.

Brilliant post. We need more of such posts.

Iam now so disappointed and feeling cheated. How can so many analysts,pundits, tennis fans not pick up this simple one dimensional player?. They even went on to say that he is probably the closest to GOAT. Shame on them.

Now that you have unravelled some of the mysteries of Roger Federer, may be you can also help us solve the mystery of 16 grandslams won with a one dimensional game that too with just a Forehand and Movement (Gonzo anyone?)
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
That's easy. Weak era especially on hard court and especially until 2007 (when Murray and Djoko came on board.) Weak era on grass before 2007 too when Rafa started to master it.
 

corners

Legend
I definitely see what Nick is saying. If you think about it, all the other top players have huge strengths with some minor, yet noticeable weaknesses. Rafa was mostly a defensive clay courter. His serve was quite weak and his offense wasn't at the same level as his defense. Obviously he's improved those aspects of his game and is now quite complete. However, He's always, to some extent, battling his natural tendency to be a defensive player.

Roger has a great game, but his backhand can't match up with the two-handers of today.

Djokovic is just solid in every aspect. His game seems cleaner than Nadal's and more modern than Federer's. He's well-rounded, solid, almost generic player.

Definitely not saying that Djokovic is greater than Nadal or Federer. Just that I can see how his game could be seen as more well rounded and complete.

Yeah, you've got it. And I think the point is that he has the most complete game to exploit the era he's playing in. In a grass-court era his game would be seriously lacking in some crucial areas - his volleys are OK, but not nearly good enough, and his overhead would be a serious liability. But on the tour now, with slow or medium slow courts at nearly every event, his game has almost no weakness.

On clay his movement isn't quite as good as it is on hardcourts, which is one of the reasons Fed was able to beat him at the French. And his head can still go off, especially if his daddy is being hard on him.

Ranking the critical skills to today's game, I would say:

Forehand:
Nadal 10
Federer 10
Djokovic 9
Murray 8

Backhand:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9
Federer 8
Murray 9.5

Serve:
Federer 9.5
Djokovic 9
Nadal 8
Murray 9

Return:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9
Federer 9
Murray 9.5

Movement:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 9.5
Federer 9
Murray 9

Defense:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 10
Federer 8.5
Murray 9.5

Net play (tactics, volleys & overheads):
Federer 9
Nadal 8
Djokovic 7.5
Murray 8

Mental:
Nadal 10
Federer 9
Djokovic 8
Murray 7.5

Confidence at present:
Djokovic 10
Nadal 8
Federer 7.5
Murray 7.5

Totals (just for kicks):

Djokovic 83.5
Nadal 81.5
Federer 79.5
Murray 77.5
 
Last edited:
1

1970CRBase

Guest
Yeah, you've got it. And I think the point is that he has the most complete game to exploit the era he's playing in. In a grass-court era his game would be seriously lacking in some crucial areas - his volleys are OK, but not nearly good enough, and his overhead would be a serious liability. But on the tour now, with slow or medium slow courts at nearly every event, his game has almost no weakness.

This.

Complete or not is a relative thing to the current conditions.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
I agree Roger isnt a complete player in a historic sense. He has one of the all time best forehands, excellent movement, and a very good serve. However his backhand, return of serve, and net game are all mediocre. Djokovic has a more complete game when playing well, he is outstanding off both wings, he is more patient and doesnt make a huge # of unforced errors everytime he plays someone who gets alot of balls back, he returns serve much better than Roger and while he can lose confidence in his serve it is still very good when he is on.

As for the Roger vs Gonzalez comparision Roger has an even better forehand than Gonzalez, has light years better movement and overall defense, has a much better 1st serve and light years better second serve, and is mentally much tougher. His return and volleys while not that good are easily better than Gonzalez's poor ones as well. Of course he is both a much better and more complete player than 1 shot wonder/0 masters titles Gonzalez, but that doesnt make him the most complete ever.
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
Say whaaaaaa?!

:shock:

Djokovic is the fastest man in tennis.

No, not even close. Federer in his prime, Nadal in his prime, Coria, Hewitt, Chang and a lot of other players were clearly faster than Djokovic now. Djokovic appears fast because of his "last moment" dives and splits, and that's why I called his flexibility his strength. He's almost as good as Monfils there.

Unlike Federer, Djokovic is a baseliner first and foremost. Federer is an all-court player, he has every shot and trick in his book, while Djokovic is far behind in the shotmaking department.
 
Last edited:

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
No, not even close. Federer in his prime, Nadal in his prime, Coria, Hewitt, Chang and a lot of other players were clearly faster than Djokovic now.

Djokovic appears fast because of his "last moment" dives and splits, and that's why I called his flexibility his strength. He's almost as good as Monfils there.

Very close, I would say. Prime Federer was definitely not as fast as Djokovic. Nadal, Chang, and Coria do have more explosive foot-speed than Djokovic, but Djoko's footspeed is not far behind. Monfils, on the other hand, is by far quicker than all the guys mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuf12Uw1dk
 
Last edited:

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
That's easy. Weak era especially on hard court and especially until 2007 (when Murray and Djoko came on board.) Weak era on grass before 2007 too when Rafa started to master it.

Yes but Nadal's era was SOOOOO strong on clay wasn't it to permit Nadal to win 70% of all his wins on clay. Who besides Federer got to most of the FO finals against Nadal? Talk about a weak era!

Also for your information,Nadal and Federer are pretty much from the same era. Federer started winning slams in 2003 and Nadal won his first in 2005. That means there is only 2 tennis years that separates them. You yourself always brag how Nadal was a child prodigy. So you are admitting Nadal started winning younger and thus was pretty much the same era as Federer who was a later bloomer. If Federer had a weak era so did Nadal I am afraid.

Djokovic and Murray? How many times did they defeat Federer in HC slam finals? I will tell you, NEVER. Real strong competition for Federer in slam finals and this was even after 2007 when Federer was past his prime.

LOL at Rafa starting to MASTER grass. Has he ever defended a grass slam title? How many slams does he have on grass? Two right. Rafa's competition is not difficult on grass now he is just not as good on grass as he is on clay. Give me a break.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
I saw Andy up close at cinci and was the most impressed with his game. His downfall is that he complains to his coaches too much and is not as focused as he should be. If he can overcome that, I think he has the game to beat all of these guys. His movement and ball striking were really good.

I put Murray before Del Po. If Murray can get his head together he will be dangerous. It is a big "if" though.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Yes but Nadal's era was SOOOOO strong on clay wasn't it to permit Nadal to win 70% of all his wins on clay. Who besides Federer got to most of the FO finals against Nadal? Talk about a weak era!

I agree. It was a weak era all around and Federer, Nadal, and now Djokovic are all capatilizing on it. Guys like Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, and Edberg all had it so much harder with very deep fields and lots of strong players on all surfaces (and no I am not saying all those players are better than Federer and Nadal but their competition sure was). The fact Djokovic could end up giving this era 3 men who have won career slams and won double digit slams, when previously only about 5 men in history had done either (and not all the same ones) is telling enough. Along with the fact Djokovic has a good chance to have the 3rd 5 slam year in the last 8 years, and while Federer didnt win 3 slams in 2005 he lost only 4 matches so you might as well add that to the group as well.

In the old days you used to have specialists on clay and grass. Now there is no such thing. It is the same 1-3 players winning everything on every surface. There are no specialists, and the top 10 is full of scrubs with 30% the ability of the top few. Just compare for instance the likes of Robredo, Monfils, Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer to prime Federer, Nadal, current Djokovic, LOL! It used to be you had to have 80% the ability of a #1 to make the top 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Yes but Nadal's era was SOOOOO strong on clay wasn't it to permit Nadal to win 70% of all his wins on clay. Who besides Federer got to most of the FO finals against Nadal? Talk about a weak era!

Also for your information,Nadal and Federer are pretty much from the same era. Federer started winning slams in 2003 and Nadal won his first in 2005. That means there is only 2 tennis years that separates them. You yourself always brag how Nadal was a child prodigy. So you are admitting Nadal started winning younger and thus was pretty much the same era as Federer who was a later bloomer. If Federer had a weak era so did Nadal I am afraid.

Djokovic and Murray? How many times did they defeat Federer in HC slam finals? I will tell you, NEVER. Real strong competition for Federer in slam finals and this was even after 2007 when Federer was past his prime.

LOL at Rafa starting to MASTER grass. Has he ever defended a grass slam title? How many slams does he have on grass? Two right. Rafa's competition is not difficult on grass now he is just not as good on grass as he is on clay. Give me a break.



We've already gone through that thousands of times on this board (yawn). Before 2008, Nadal's achievements off clay were very limited, if not non existent (except for 2005, only time before 2008 when Rafa won 2 tier 1 events- masters- on hard, Fed had a free pass in slams).
In 2007, Djoko and Murray were still babies, yet they both managed to beat Fed in best of 3 but Fed would rack up a few more slams before Nadal became more of a threat on hard and grass and Djoko came into his own.
Davy has always sucked in slams (he's never denied it). Nalby was completely inconsistent. Hewitt went AWOL and Roddick was Fed's b-tch. That's why Fed ended up with 16 slams. (partially). No challenger other than on clay.
 
Last edited:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
I always hoped Davydenko would win a slam. To me his game was like a better version of Kafelnikov's and Kafelnikov won 2 slams. However he never had the mental strength to rise for the big moments like Kafelnikov who never won a Masters yet still won 2 slams. He definitely had the game to beat Federer, it was obvious watching them play many times, but he was almost always too mentally weak, especialy in best of 5.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
He always bent over for Fed. One thing that cannot be denied is that Fed is the most hyped player of all time. It was something bizarre to witness. I had people around me claiming Fed would win 15 Wimbledon titles. It was like being suddenly thrown into a real life version of "fly over a cuckoo's nest". Megalomania gone mad.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Yes but Nadal's era was SOOOOO strong on clay wasn't it to permit Nadal to win 70% of all his wins on clay. Who besides Federer got to most of the FO finals against Nadal? Talk about a weak era!

Also for your information,Nadal and Federer are pretty much from the same era. Federer started winning slams in 2003 and Nadal won his first in 2005. That means there is only 2 tennis years that separates them. You yourself always brag how Nadal was a child prodigy. So you are admitting Nadal started winning younger and thus was pretty much the same era as Federer who was a later bloomer. If Federer had a weak era so did Nadal I am afraid.

Djokovic and Murray? How many times did they defeat Federer in HC slam finals? I will tell you, NEVER. Real strong competition for Federer in slam finals and this was even after 2007 when Federer was past his prime.

LOL at Rafa starting to MASTER grass. Has he ever defended a grass slam title? How many slams does he have on grass? Two right. Rafa's competition is not difficult on grass now he is just not as good on grass as he is on clay. Give me a break.
Dude, why do you bother? Even in this supposedly stronger era, Roger was the one to beat the hottest guy on tour currently while El Martir has his five losses to Djokovic in his head even when he isn't playing him.
As to Nadal supposedly coming into his prime in 2008. LOL, despite his supposed prime, Nadal has reached only two HC slam finals in three years. That's a lot worse than Roger did on his worst surface.
 
1

15_ounce

Guest
What a lot of bull crap. Djoker hasn't even had a career grand slam yet, and he's yet to win Roland Garros and US Open.


Djokovic the most complete player of all time:

He can roar like a lion
He can surrender like a pusssycat
He can melt in the heat
He can joke like a clown

novak.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
We've already gone through that thousands of times on this board (yawn). Before 2008, Nadal's achievements off clay were very limited, if not non existent (except for 2005, only time before 2008 when Rafa won 2 tier 1 events- masters- on hard, Fed had a free pass in slams).
In 2007, Djoko and Murray were still babies, yet they both managed to beat Fed in best of 3 but Fed would rack a few more slams before Nadal became more of a threat on hard and grass and Djoko came into his own.
Davy has always sucked in slams (he's never denied it). Nalby was completely inconsistent. Hewitt went AWOL and Roddick was Fed's b-tch. That's why Fed won 16 slams. (partially). No challenger other than on clay.

I don't care how many times we have gone through it on this forum before, I don't agree with it.

Nadal defeated Federer in Miami in 2004 and gave him a difficult match in 2005. If Nadal could beat and stick with Federer there why couldn't he win HC slams? What you say makes no sense, sorry.

Federer still won HC slams past 2007 and Nadal could not stop him (aside from in 2009 at the AO), nor could Murray or Djokovic. In 2007 Djokovic did not defeat Federer in the USO final when he was a baby according to you. But, the following year in 2008 Djokovic won the AO did he not? So much for your Djokovic as a baby not being able to win slams! :rolleyes: And Murray? Could not defeat Roger in 2008 at the USO--when Roger was past his prime already. Then in 2010 was Murray still considered a baby? That Murray still could not defeat Federer at the AO. So all this baby stuff is hogwash.

This is a strong era? Aside from the top 4 whom I have already talked about above, this is the biggest clown era ever. Look at the rest of the top 10. Soderling, Monfils, Fish, Berdych, Almagro. Have any of them won any slams? I must have missed that. In 2004 you had Roddick, Hewitt, Moya, Agassi. Did they not win slams? I am pretty sure they did.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
To mandy01: I didn't say that even after 2008, Rafa was a huge threat on hard, I just said that before 2008 he was not one at all and those are the years (2004-2007) when Fed piled up most slams. He didn't have a credible rival on hard during that time. At least, not in slams.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
To mandy01: I didn't say that even after 2008, Rafa was a huge threat on hard, I just said that before 2008 he was not one at all and those are the years (2004-2007) when Fed piled up most slams. He didn't have a credible rival on hard during that time. At least, not in slams.
by your logic, he hasn't had one even after 2008 considering he was still winning HC slams and mind you, 2 slam finals don't come close to rivaling someone on a surface. It's not like Nadal has made any significant difference in that regard. Roger on the other hand, till AO 2010 was almost a regular in slam finals across all surfaces. So stop making Nadal out to be the hero he isn't. Not on Hard anyway.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Dude, why do you bother? Even in this supposedly stronger era, Roger was the one to beat the hottest guy on tour currently while El Martir has his five losses to Djokovic in his head even when he isn't playing him.
As to Nadal supposedly coming into his prime in 2008. LOL, despite his supposed prime, Nadal has reached only two HC slam finals in three years. That's a lot worse than Roger did on his worst surface.

True. It totally depends on my mood--i.e. if I am in the mood to argue about things that are so completely obvious or not!

Yes, it took Nadal 4 years since winning his first slam in 2005 to get to the finals at the 2009 AO to meet Roger in a HC slam. Yet Roger was meeting Nadal at the FO in finals on Roger's worst surface since 2005, that is 2 years after Roger's first slam. All of this baby and prime Nadal talk is complete nonsense.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
I see what you mean. Nadal is perhaps the most overhyped clay court legend to ever play this game. All 6 of his FOs were won against weak and incompetent players like Federer(most hyped loser in tennis history) and the Spanish Armada. Djokovic was simply not a threat on clay in past years. 2011 is the start of Djokovic's peak clay court tennis and he already beat Nadal to the cleaners twice in straight sets. The lack of a main rival will always be well noted when people look at Nadal's inflated RG count of 6. However, that is not his fault. Nadal is still a great player but he is overrated. :(
 
Last edited:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Mandy01: after 2007 doesn't matter. The reason why Fed reached 16 in the end is his 3 seasons with 3 slams each: 2004, 2006, 2007. Well, on top of his great talent- that we all know and admire- I'm arguing there was a big absence of challenger on hard, which made it easy for Fed to win both AO and USO those years.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I see what you mean. Nadal is perhaps the most overhyped clay court "legend" :)lol:) to ever play this game. All 6 of his FOs were won against weak and incompetent players like Federer(most hyped loser in tennis history) and the Spanish Armada. Djokovic was simply not a threat on clay in past years. 2011 is the start of Djokovic's peak clay court tennis and he already took Nadal to the cleaners twice in straight sets. The lack of a main rival will always be well noted when people look at Nadal's inflated RG count of 6.



Nadal doesn't have 16 slam titles, not even on clay. What I'm explaining is why Fed got to the extravagant # of 16. He would have had around 10 if he had had a challenger on hard during his prime, which he didn't.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
To mandy01: I didn't say that even after 2008, Rafa was a huge threat on hard, I just said that before 2008 he was not one at all and those are the years (2004-2007) when Fed piled up most slams. He didn't have a credible rival on hard during that time. At least, not in slams.

And who besides Roger were Nadal's credible rivals on clay? Roger was the only one meeting him in most of the FO clay finals. Or heck who were Nadal's rivals on clay in any tournament. 70% of his wins have come on clay. Are you telling me Nadal had big competition on clay? He is good on clay and was better than his rivals just as Roger was better than most of his rivals on grass and HC at least until 2008 when Roger had already started his decline. Same thing dear, good competition or not.

Nadal was more than capable of meeting Roger on HC slams surfaces in finals yet he was not able to do it. Forget this baby/prime Nadal s hit.
 
Top